Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Now with corrected BFD WG list.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> thank you for your thorough review, thoughtful and detailed comments and
> suggestions.
> Please find my answers, notes in-line tagged GIM>>.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
>> The
>> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts
>> as
>> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
>> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing
>> ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>>
>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
>> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
>> discussion
>> or by updating the draft.
>>
>> Document: draft-draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-16.txt
>> Reviewer: Michael Richardson
>> Review Date: 2018-05-12
>> IETF LC End Date: unknown
>> Intended Status: Standards Track
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This document is basically ready for publication, but has presentation
>> nits
>> that should be considered prior to publication.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> It seems like a well written document, with an intelligent and
>> well-throught
>> out way to extend BFD to multicast uses.
>>
> GIM>> Thank you for your kind consideration and approval of our work.
>
>>
>> I found the document a bit too abstract as it attempted to apply itself to
>> any place that BFD is used.  I would like to perhaps better
>> understand how it is used in some real multicast situations (MPLS,
>> PIM/IP-level multicast).
>>
> GIM>> BFD for Multipoint networks, also referred to as p2mp BFD, may be
> used in single-hop and multi-hop scenarios. Already there are two
> individual drafts,  draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case   and
> draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case, that demonstrate use of p2mp BFD in
> single-hop scenario. Will note that the section 4.8 of the draft does
> explain encapsulation of the multipoint BFD control packet over MPLS LSP
> using IP/UDP.
>
>>
>> I believe that my lack of familiarity with some of those technologies
>> might
>> be keeping me in the dark.
>>
>> I'm not generally happy with documents that say:
>>     "The following procedure replaces section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]."
>>
>> because it's difficult to know what is going on without having the two
>> documents next to eachother.  For an implementer, I'm not sure that there
>> is any savings by doing this either, it seems to be solely for the
>> convenience of those writing it.
>>
> GIM>> The text that follows the first sentence in section 4.13.1 is the
> replacement of the entire section 6.8.6 of RFC 5880. Would stressing that
> make the relationship more clear, e.g.:
>
> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880].
>
> And the same can be applied to the first sentence in section 14.3.3:
>
> The following procedure replaces the entire section 6.8.7 of [RFC5880].
>
>
>> I would prefer to have section 4.13 actually number the steps of the
>> pseudo-code.
>> As far as I can see, all of the pseudo-code of 5880 is being replaced, so
>> this is not as much as a patch, so I don't see why not to number the
>> pseudo-code.  (Like BASIC if you want, or with numbered lists)
>>
> GIM>> I'll try but perhaps RFC Editor may help us here.
>
>>
>> I did not evaluate the pseudo-code to determine if it made logical sense,
>> it
>> seemed well written and understandable.
>>
>> Major Issues:
>>
>> No major issues found.
>>
>> Minor Issues:
>>
>> No minor issues found.
>>
>> Nits:
>>
>> "the tail declares the path to having failed."          <- s/having/have/
>>
> GIM>> Accepted to the new working version of the draft.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>